Just dealing with the creation aspect, a god who started everything. Physicists have discovered that the universe can create itself through quantum fluctuations and that the amount of energy needed to form any universe is zero.

This is not exactly the science I was thinking about above but it is closely related.

Foxy! Why mention it if it isn't what I'm asking? Don't take that the wrong way but getting you to explain your argument here is akin to pulling teeth! I'm not asking you for related science or an analogy. I'm asking you to explain how quantum mechanics disproves the deist's god. Just give me the premises and conclusion.

It is a mathematical formulation based on good experimental evidence about quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. It is sufficient proof on its own that any universe CAN begin this way. It means that a deist god is not necessary which is what you wanted.

What I was thinking of earlier was a deist god who also controls the universe after it was formed but you did not mention that. That is why I asked about your assumptions.

It is a mathematical formulation based on good experimental evidence about quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. It is sufficient proof on its own that any universe CAN begin this way. It means that a deist god is not necessary which is what you wanted.

Right, and I agree. I think our hang up is that a god not being necessary is not the same thing as disproving a god.

The original definition was also that a deist god controls the universe in some way.

Mathematically quantum mechanics cannot be described in terms of definite results. It is impossible to get from A to B, and the early universe was entirely quantum. So a deist god cannot control the outcome which contradicts the original definition.

You could of course say that a deist god purposely made a universe which he, she or it could not control, but when you say that the whole story sounds ridiculous. Especially when there is a natural explanation which produces the same result.

I have used some analogy to explain this in theory but I could not see how to avoid it. This is the most difficult science there is to explain. If you want to see explanations of actual examples of nature acting this way I suggest the online videos of the Feynman lectures in New Zealand about reflected light.

So the conclusion is that the original definition of a deist god does not work. If you want to step back further to simply a creator god. This god becomes either a bungler or unnecessary. Would you even define a bungling god as a god or just a powerful being, maybe one with some scientific tools to help.

I have just thought that my explanations of the creator deist god and controlling deist god were too soft. I didn't mention non causality in quantum mechanics. We can still observe non caused quantum fluctuations today when particles are created from nothing around a black hole. Since the universe is a quantum universe and was at first entirely quantum, non causality rules out the creator deist completely. The controlling deist god has already been eliminated but is now eliminated again.

We are only left with the natural scientific theory of Krauss. This does not mean that Krauss is correct because there could be another scientific theory which improves on Krauss, but Krauss' theory is sufficient.

For non causality the Feynman video I mentioned above is good. You will either understand it or not. Analogy cannot be accurately used in quantum mechanics since there is nothing to compare it with to make it easy.

I have just thought that my explanations of the creator deist god and controlling deist god were too soft. I didn't mention non causality in quantum mechanics. We can still observe non caused quantum fluctuations today when particles are created from nothing around a black hole. Since the universe is a quantum universe and was at first entirely quantum, non causality rules out the creator deist completely. The controlling deist god has already been eliminated but is now eliminated again.

I always thought that black-holes condense energy into matter due to their immense gravity (enough to suck in light)...Also...i am confused, are you a deist or something...i cannot tell... xD

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Interesting question: can energy become matter under certain circumstances? I'll start a thread on the Science board and maybe someone more knowledgeable will chime in to inform us.

This is all i have to say....

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

I was trying to explain why the deist idea is impossible but my explanation was not as good as it should have been. The non causality part of quantum mechanics is difficult for many people to accept but different aspects of it can still be seen today in the way the universe works. The early universe was entirely quantum and uncaused.

Your idea of black holes is not correct. They are just gravitational holes in space. All the action you see around them takes place just outside a black hole as everything crashes in.

Matter and energy are interchangeable in the ratio e=mc2. The sun shines by converting matter into energy.

Organized religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash the kneecaps of anyone who doesn't show proper deference to the tribe's chosen totem.